I have a 10 year old gaming PC. I use Shadow to run games as if I had a $2000 GPU. Also for streaming VR, which my PC is not capable of. These are admittedly niche applications, which is why Shadow is pricey. But as a proof-of-concept it’s pretty effective.
This services games listed are big AAA material so yea this thing is directly being marketed at gamers not people playing Farmville on their phones. Why you ignore this fact I don’t know but whatever.
Can Stadia make my Warhammer 2 battles run better, and make turns times way faster? Like 1 second turn times late game in Mortal Empires? Want to brag about the power of the cloud, ante up and do it here. If it can do this, it has my attention. If not, no way.
Same here. I have a relatively old PC, but as of yet have no real reason to upgrade any further except for games. I have a library of about 150 games on Steam, GOG, etc., plus plenty of old PC game disks. If Stadia works, I would be amenable to not upgrading my hardware ever again. I’m skeptical of whether it works sufficiently well, however.
That is my sentiment as well.
After reading about it here a bit more thoroughly I think I get the idea behind Stadia. Is there any hint how Stadia’s YouTube integration will look like? (“click here to play”).
Right now I have to go to a specific website that is not very appealing. It looks like complicated gamers’ stuff (and not like something a non-gamer daddy will easily activate for his kids or any non-gamer will recognize/understand at all).
Why isn’t it called YouTube Gaming and much more present on YouTube? Mhm.
I mean, I’ve made the case for in a fair amount of detail. Pretty much everything points to them trying to expand the market. You’ve not engaged with any part of that argument, and just keep repeating the same gate-keeping statements.
It seems quite possible that Stadia fails. But if that happens, it’s not because they couldn’t get the people with a gaming PC and two consoles interested. It’s because they couldn’t convert people from watching games to playing games.
There were some examples of how they imagine the integration working in the launch event:
- The “play now” button: watch a video of a game, click to start playing it.
- The “state share” feature: allow sharing of a specific game state, so you could watch a streamer play through a challenging level and then try playing it yourself.
- The “crowd play” feature: for multiplayer games, allow people to watch a stream and seamlessly queue for a spot in the game.
- And also integration from in-game to Youtube, rather than from Youtube to in-game.
Why isn’t it called YouTube Gaming and much more present on YouTube? Mhm.
Because Youtube Gaming already has a meaning, it’s their Twitch competitor. And it’s presumably it’s not more present on Youtube since it hasn’t launched yet.
The YouTube integration thing is awesome, but I think people tend to follow the streamers they like. Until a critical mass of streamers uses stadia, there won’t be enough available ready-to-play streams to make any difference.
Actually, until a critical mass uses YouTube.
Oh : )
Thanks for the answer and your informed post(s)!
I’m curious to see how Stadia’s marketing/visible integration will look like once it’s out. I was surprised that YouTube, considered to be the meaningful puzzle piece here, shows no sign of Stadia’s imminent arrival whatsoever.
You repeat the same Google PR hype as to why this thing will be huge. Giant untapped audiences who are just waiting to buy $60 games but won’t because what a few hundred dollar console that can last for 7 years is too much?
You’ve got one giant pitcher of Google koolaide your chugging.
You could not be an asshole to people. You have presented zero data to back your claims either and seem to act like you have a ton of knowledge about “regular consumers” that you clearly don’t. You just have intuition assuming everyone is just like you.
I don’t think you’d need a critical mass of people streaming to Youtube for Stadia to take full advantage of it, just a critical mass of people using Youtube (which is very clear). While Youtube has done terribly in the live video department, all evidence seems to point that they do have critical mass to take advantage in the VOD department.
I do think view it weird they haven’t announced any F2P games on Stadia. I think that’s going to be the bread and butter of the system allowing Google to rake in the microtransations. People can play AAA games on their phones and they will spend money on stupid shit in troves I"m sure.
There seems to be widespread dismissal of bandwidth and latency concerns here. I’m sure the average QT3 poster has a decent internet connection, in a major city with zero bandwidth caps. Well done, congratulations, good for you. But you are not every gamer.
Until last year, my village had an average aDSL download speed of 2Mbps. We had the best connection in the village at 8-10Mbps somehow. Some people struggled to get 1Mbps. No, they did not stream netflix, or watch youtube at all (even in SD).
Not everyone lives in a city, and a LOT of people have poor internet connectivity or bandwidth caps, and video EATS bandwidth for breakfast. Its not even a price-comparison issue, but simple availability. People who can easily afford a $2k top-range gaming PC often live somewhere with crappy DSL connections and 50GB/month household bandwidth caps.
That problem does not go away unless google literally employ tens of thousands of people to dig up roads all over Europe and lay new fiber cable, and fit it to the telegraph poles and other 1950s telecoms infrastructure we have.
Stadia will be very popular with a trivial percentage of gamers, but nowhere near enough to justify buying the big name exclusives it WILL need.
By this reasoning Netflix would be popular with a trivial percentage of TV viewers but nowhere enough to justify buying the big name exclusives it will need.
In the real world Netflix is becoming the biggest TV producer in the world, spending like crazy in some of the most expensive ever shows.
The audience with decent speed and bandwidth might be big enough for game streaming. Or it might not, but that a percentage of the potential audience falls out is not a concern unless if the remaining total audience is big enough.
Edit: this is a reply to a post by cliffski, which he has deleted.
You’re right. Since everyone in the world can’t enjoy Stadia, they probably shouldn’t bother, because every business can only be successful if the entire human population is its customer.
Shut it down, Google, you clearly haven’t thought this through.
If people watch Netflix on SD on HD TVs, gamers might also be willing to play at a lower resolution If the incentives are right?
I agree the technological hurdle is higher, but if you can reach, say, 10M subscribers at $10 a month, you are funding several exclusive AAA games and an incalculable number of smaller projects per year. And that population could be reachable (or not, but I don’t think it’s that out of the question).
Edit: this is a reply to a post by cliffski, which he has deleted.
Good question. If your argument is that Stadia can’t work because Google doesn’t understand how many people can use its product, I wonder the same thing. Because I am certain Google knows the size of their addressable audience.
I dont see any point in discussing it when everyone is filled with snark, so knock yourselves out and buy some juicy alphabet shares.
Take your ball and go home if you want, but deleting old posts so people don’t understand replies is uncool. Sad.
I do hate the snark. It’s like nobody knows how to have a good faith discussion or disagreement anymore and they’re posting to own the other side.